Which, once again, is why I posed the question. Different people will define "Dynasty" differently, which is why I won't argue the point with any of them. If you think SB's are the most important thing, you'll say one thing, but if it is length of back-to-back-to-back... seasons, it would be another. One coach and one QB, then that is something else. And of course, a matter of whether you were alive during the era in question. I asked my son this question, he was born in 1984, and his answers were like the Pats, Colts, Niners and Giants.

To me, a dynasty is a team that has an extended period of winning seasons while also winning a couple of Super Bowls. So, the Cowboys 20 yrs, Niners and Raiders 16 yr streaks are tops, with all three teams winning multiple SBs. It was the 4th team that was hard for me to pick, because I had to trump Miami's winning streaks and SBs with the Steelers 4 SBs during their lesser time period. And of course, some people will look and think more SBs in a shorter period shows more dominance, and thus makes that team more of a dynasty. I won't argue that point either. As I've said, everyone is going to have a different view. I suspect, most people under 50 won't choose the Raiders, and some won't choose the Cowboys though they've gotten more media exposure. That's why I say age plays a part in these types of polls.

I put the 1970's Raiders up there as a dynasty. Madden still has the highest winning percentage of all time, iirc. His teams were always in the mix, and by my dynasty standards, I would include those Raiders teams.

You just asked for four, so I picked the four that I consider the tops. But easily could put the Raiders as five.

You are right about lifespan. Which is why my perspective starts in the modern Super Bowl era - circa 1970's - simply because I do not have a point of reference for earlier periods. The Packers were definitely a dynasty under Lombardi in the '60's.

__________________"Football is only a diversion." ~ Houston Texans, Inc.